Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Mitt Romney remains a stalwart defender of his health care law and the individual mandate as a "conservative principle."
Here are the comments:
"I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign. What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by three to one, and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care."
We've debated this back and forth before, here and across the web. But it now seems well-evident that Romney isn't just speaking historically - he still believes in mandates, it's just a matter of what level the mandate happens at (national v. state). While as a matter of federalism this is valid, Erick Erickson makes a key point about this:
By the way, for those who want to obfuscate on the federalism issue, yes, this is a federalist issue. It is perfectly legitimate for Massachusetts under its constitution to do this when it is not permissible for the federal government to do it under Article I, Section 8. But just because something is constitutional or not does not make it conservative. Constitutional and conservative are not exactly the same things.
And, of course, it blunts any real ability for Romney to criticize the most unpopular element of an Obama plan that did essentially the same thing.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Again, why is a mandate like Romneycare less conservative than raising everyone's state income taxes to pay for the free riders? Or, why isn't Romneycare fundamentally different than having raised everyone's state income taxes and then offering a credit if you get private health insurance for not being less of a potential burden on the state? WHY?
Jan '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Because the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to buy by mandate. Even Ronmey acknowledges that, sort of - he relegates that coercion to the states - but it's the same unauthorized government intrusion into a basic civil right - to exercise a personal prerogative to buy or not to buy.
If the mandate is so important, then taxation to pay for universal Medicade would be the constitutionally permissible way to go. But that means raising taxes to unsupportable levels, and that would be political suicide. Much more politically safe to make everyone (except the invariably privileged among us) spend their after-tax dollars by government mandate.
Some fishing gear company ought to name a spinning reel after Romney.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Is Newt not similarly compromised since he has many, many, many on-the-record statements supporting the federal mandate? In addition to the "Newt's Notes" business, this also was unearthed yeserday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VWSGQmVh6A
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
In addition to Anon's point regarding the principles involved, @ParisParamus, I'd point out a pragmatic problem - that heightened taxation funds the subsidized coverage of the uninsured. From the WSJ back in May:
In fact, the WSJ left out some of the subsidized in these calculations, so it's a bit worse now. They also noted that "Uncompensated hospital care rose 5% from 2008 to 2009, and 15% from 2009 to 2010, hitting $475 million." So it hasn't stopped the free rider problem, either.
Edited on December 28, 2011 at 7:52pmMay '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
wmartin: Is Newt not similarly compromised since he has many, many, many on-the-record statements supporting the federal mandate? In addition to the "Newt's Notes" business, this also was unearthed yeserday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VWSGQmVh6A · Dec 28 at 10:44am
And as James of E pointed out in another thread, Newt this month made the case for a federal mandate equivalent (instead of fining those who disobey, we just deny them a tax cut -- a tomato/tomahto difference, unlike Romney's state-vs-fed distinction, which is at least tomato/broccoli, maybe even tomato/meatloaf).
Edited on December 28, 2011 at 7:59pmApr '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Scott Reusser
wmartin: Is Newt not similarly compromised since he has many, many, many on-the-record statements supporting the federal mandate? In addition to the "Newt's Notes" business, this also was unearthed yeserday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VWSGQmVh6A · Dec 28 at 10:44am
And as James of E pointed out in another thread, Newt this month made the case for a federal mandate equivalent (instead of fining those who disobey, we just deny them a tax cut -- a tomato/tomahto difference, unlike Romney's state-vs-fed distinction, which is at least tomato/broccoli, maybe even tomato/meatloaf). ·
But, to be clear, a Presidential candidate's views of state law matters are far more important than their view of federal matters, right Ben?
Edited on December 28, 2011 at 8:02pmRe: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Fascism is Fascism. It matters not whether the guy implementing it is a President or Governor.
Dec '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
"...and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care."
No, governor, it's a fundamentally conservative principle that our political class, federal and state, butt out of our business. It's hard not to notice that your argument pivots on the assumption that it's the government's job to, in your words, 'give out free care'.
Dec '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
If RomneyCare is a great idea for the people of Massachusetts and is their expression of their state's right under federalism, the people of Massachusetts ought to figure out how to make it work without Federal subsidies.
How is it conservative to aid and abet one state in sucking in Federal subsidies from the rest of the states?
Sep '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
James Of England But, to be clear, a Presidential candidate's views of state law matters are far more important than their view of federal matters, right Ben? · Dec 28 at 11:02am
Edited on Dec 28 at 11:02 am
So the defense boils down to: Newt started it!
Where does that leave those of us who think they're both wrong?
Sep '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
2012 will be remembered as the year that finally finished off Romney's political ambitions once and for all. After his mountain of cash for sliming people is blessedly removed from the mix, we might finally get some decent candidates.
Dec '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
"it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care"
I agree.
However, it is not fundamentally conservative to use the coercive power of the state to force that personal responsibility on individuals through the individual mandate.
The problem is that the state has made a fundamental error in deciding to give out health care to people who don't pay for it. The conservative way to insist on personal responsibility is to tell would-be free riders to get off the bus and find a taxi.
Those who choose to forgo health insurance should be required to pay for their medical treatment. If a catastrophic illness or injury drives them to indigence, that's the consequence of their personal choice -- that's them taking personal responsibility -- and that's them demonstrating to other would-be free riders the consequences of irresponsibility.
Dec '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Mark Belling Fan
So the defense boils down to: Newt started it!
Where does that leave those of us who think they're both wrong? · Dec 28 at 11:31am
Perhaps it leaves us supporting one of the other candidates?
Mar '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
While I don't support the personal mandate, I don't really hold it against anybody because it's not a core principle. Rather, it's a response to an already liberal policy of giving free health care to to the uninsured regardless of whether or not they could have afforded to buy insurance. Once we have made that decision, there are only bad options in dealing with the consequences: force the person to pay with the mandate or force the rest of us to pay through higher taxes and insurance premiums. Which of those options is more conservative? I don't know. If not for our government run amok it would be a false dilemma. Unfortunately they are the options on the table.
Aug '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
I agree with you 100% on this issue, Stuart. Unfortunately, our society has gotten so soft that we can't allow people to live with the consequences of their actions. As a result, the public demands that those of us who pay for health insurance subsidize those who could afford to but do not.
I've read a ton of articles on the healthcare issue but have yet to come across a solution for the free rider problem. Romneycare was an attempt to address this issue that fell prey to the Democrat legislature in MA.
Jan '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Well, the material point is not whether one or the other is more conservative, it's whether the government has the constitutionally derived power to force citizens to buy something they may or may not want.
That's what the pending SCOTUS case is all about.
Romney's wiggling as hard as he can, and he's doing it without a sign of being embarrassed. I'd have more respect for the man if he admitted the mistake and vowed to not make it again. All this spinning makes the guy appear to me to be a side show barker.
Aug '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
This has always been the deal-breaker for me, and why I will not vote for Mitt Romney.
Mar '11
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Let's suppose you live in a state where the laws requiring hospitals to give care to whoever shows up are impossible to change because of the political sentiment of the electorate or Federal regulations. It seems to me to be a move in the conservative direction to implement a "principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care." Romney doesn't say he favors "mandates" per se but that may have been the only politically feasible way to stop free riding in Massachusetts. I'm sympathetic to those who feel government should butt out of our lives entirely. I agree wholeheartedly. But given a choice between only two options: 1) government taxes us to pay for the health care of others or 2) government insists through some mechanism, whether it's an insurance mandate or something else, that we take responsibility for ourselves, the second choice is clearly the more conservative.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
This is something that always gets tossed around in these discussions in a hazy, non specific way.
Presumably, someone who could "afford" health insurance has a job, or some other means of paying the premiums. Why can't the conservative solution be to garnish their wages and go after their assets if they skip out on medical bills?
Edited on December 28, 2011 at 9:29pmDec '10
Re: Romney Again Defends the Individual Mandate as a Conservative Idea
Mark Belling Fan
This is something that always gets tossed around in these discussions in a hazy, non specific way.
Presumably, someone who could "afford" health insurance has a job, or some other means of paying the premiums. Why can't the conservative solution be to garnish their wages and go after their assets if they skip out on medical bills?
You know what the government does when elderly people need long-term care?
They insist that the elderly people deplete all of their remaining assets to pay for that care. Then and only then do those people become eligible for Medicaid -- assistance to the indigent.
How is that the proper course for retirees and yet not the proper course for younger people?
Moreover, isn't part of conservatism the principle that citizens should have the freedom to make their own mistakes and accept the risk of consequences?
Should we force insurers to write post-mortem life insurance policies for those who die uninsured? Why force hospitals to pretend the uninsured have magic retroactive insurance?